A.M., O/B/O D.M., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A juvenile defendant appealed her sentencing in two criminal cases, challenging the length of her commitment for misdemeanor offenses in one case as exceeding the statutory maximum. The court held that sentencing a juvenile beyond the statutory maximum for a particular crime constitutes fundamental error that may be corrected on appeal without preservation, and vacated the illegal sentence for resentencing.
A juvenile sentenced beyond the statutory maximum time for the particular crime involved commits fundamental error that must be corrected on appeal without regard to preservation issues. The court rejected the state's argument that no prejudice existed because a longer concurrent legal sentence was being served and correcting the misdemeanor sentences would not change the felony sentence.
[1] Sentencing a juvenile beyond the statutory maximum for a misdemeanor offense constitutes fundamental error, which may be raised on direct appeal even if not preserved bel…
[2] A concurrent sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum for a misdemeanor offense is illegal and must be vacated, regardless of the length of other concurrent sentences.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“if a juvenile is sentenced beyond the statutory maximum time for the particular crime involved, fundamental error occurs, and should be corrected, without regard to the preservation issues”
Establishes the core holding that fundamental error in juvenile sentencing exceeding statutory maximums need not be preserved and should be corrected on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.M., sixteen years old at sentencing, pleaded guilty to attempted strong arm robbery in one case and battery and petit theft (both misdemeanors) in a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Juvenile Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
D.M. appeals two criminal cases. In Case No. 00-96, D.M. pled guilty to attempted strong arm robbery,1 and in Case No. 00-110, she pled guilty to one count of battery2 and one count of petit theft,3 both misdemeanors. The trial judge gave her two identical concurrent commitments in both cases: a level 8 commitment for five years, or until her 19th birthday. D.M. was sixteen years of age at the time of sentencing.
On appeal, D.M. questions only her commitment in Case No. 00 110. She points out that the term of commitment exceeds the statutory maximum, because misdemeanor offenses are punishable by a maximum of one year. § 775.082(4)(a).4 She concedes that this sentencing error was not raised below but argues that despite her failure to preserve the error, it is a fundamental one which may be raised on direct appeal. Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). See also J.C.R. v. State, 785 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), approved, 761 So. 2d 320 (Fla.2000).
The state agrees D.M. is technically correct, but submits that section 985.234(1), which routes all juvenile appeals through the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and section 924.501, makes the latter statute controlling in this case. It provides an appeal may not be taken unless prejudicial error is preserved. The state argues there is no prejudice in this case because had D.M. been sentenced consecutively, she could have received a total of seven years if the maximum adult sanctions were imposed. However, since she was sixteen years old at the time of sentencing, she will be released at her nineteenth birthday, in less than three years. And finally, the state points out that the correction of her misdemeanor sentences will not change her felony sentence. In J.C.R., the fourth district dealt with a similar issue. It determined that if a juvenile is sentenced beyond the statutory maximum time for the particular crime involved, fundamental error occurs, and should be corrected, without regard to the preservation issues. We agree. We also reject the state’s argument that because D.M. is serving a longer concurrent (legal) sentence in Case No. 00-96, she is not prejudiced by an illegal sentence in this case. Accordingly we vacate D.M.’s commitment in Case No. 00-110, and remand for the imposition of a sentence within the statutory maximum.
Commitment VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing
PETERSON and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur. . §§ 812.13(2)(a), 777.04, Fla. Slat. (2000), a second degree felony.
. § 784.03, Fla. Slat. (2000).
. § 812.13(c), Fla. Stat. (2000).
.The record in this case is not clear whether the petit theft had been enhanced from a second degree misdemeanor so as to permit a statutory maximum sentence of one year rather than 60 days incarceration. On remand this must be clarified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.B. v. State, 816 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…The State contends that this issue is not preserved for review. We find that the error in I.B.’s disposition is fundamental and, therefore, must be corrected despite the fact that it has not been preserved for review. See A.M. ex rel. D.M. v. State, 790 So. 2d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[I]f a juvenile is sentenced beyond the statutory maximum time for [*233] the particular crime involved, fundamental error occurs, and should be corrected without regard to the preservation issues.”) (citing J.C.R. v. Sta…
-
J.S. v. State, 805 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…nner prescribed by s. 921.051 and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.” (emphasis added). See Ch. 99-284, § 31, at 3124, Laws of Fla. This new amendment applies to J.C.R.’s August 11,1999 offense. Id. at 551 n. 1. In A.M., o/b/o D.M. v. State, 790 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), this court cited to J.C.R., recognizing that preservation requirements now apply in juvenile delinquency proceedings, except when fundamental error exists. Since J.S. did not argue to the trial court that it was required to set…
-
J.D.M. v. State, 82 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…rule 8.135 motion. We are not persuaded by the State’s argument that this error is harmless because [*1136] J.D.M. will still serve a probationary period of longer than a year for the concurrent felony adjudications. See A.M. ex rel. D.M. v. State, 790 So. 2d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“We also reject the state’s argument that because [the juvenile] is serving a longer concurrent (legal) sentence in [the felony case], she is not prejudiced by an illegal sentence in this [misdemeanor] case.”). There is st…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- J.C.R. v. State, 785 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Jordan v. State, 761 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2000)